Thinking Out Loud, aka The Broad Gaze
Thoughts on the social impacts of communication policy and educational technology.
CTV.ca | Copyright crusaders to launch cyber campaign
Here’s another article about the anti-Canadian-DMCA movement and the crucial role that Michael Geist has played. I’m all for communities of interest, but it’s really tough to get something like this off the ground without a passionate spokesperson.
Another response to my assertion that FERPA has some scared tells me deserves a bit of clarification.
The trouble (and in some respects, benefit) of laws like copyright and privacy, which only become certain after long and expensive litigation, is that they are not completely explicit. Borderline cases leave small providers wondering whether they might be liable if they were sued–and this uncertainty leads some to steer clear of anything that pushes the boundaries.
My own theory is that FERPA was written in a protectionist paradigm, rather than a control paradigm. This means that certain categories of data are completely locked down, rather than giving the student or instructor the options to contol the data how they see fit. With fine-grained facebook-like privacy controls, it should be technically possible to let students control what is publicly released (indeed many do it anyway by doing things like posting a course video project to YouTube). The nervousness creates a situation where law (rightly or even by misinterpretation) limits what people might do with technology.
What does one need to prove that a business is built on infringement? A judge who ordered Google to hand over detailed viewing data to Viacom states:
They need the data to compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing videos with that of non-infringing videos. A markedly higher proportion of infringing-video watching may bear on plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claim, and defendants’ substantial non-infringing use defense.
Aside from the occasional difficulties of how one might define a video as “infringing,” it seems odd that Viacom needs to know who has watched what video and when. YouTube has (as far as I can remember) always been open about what their “Most Viewed” videos are–including the laughing babies, “official” content, and Naruto fansubs. The mix of different types of content is pretty striking.
Considering that Viacom also asked to see Google’s search algorithm, it seems like they’re just trying to hit Google where it hurts in any way possible. It’s troubling that this request may make a large number of their users feel violated. If a site like this were considered more of a library than a business, perhaps there would be a more historically grounded argument for keeping the data private. I’ve heard Google doesn’t make much money off of YouTube, so there’s some chance the analogy could work.
This one almost slipped past the long weekend radar 🙂
Anyone who has edited a document with me knows that I’m not one to split hairs over how something is worded. Laws, rules, and guidelines are a different story. Up to this point, the AP has spoke of “standards” and “guidelines.” Yet unless this becomes some kind of implied license on their site’s terms of use, I can’t see how any kind of standard would fit their best interests or that of bloggers. Trying to draw specifics on how much or in what way a quote can be used may deter online dialogue. I for one wouldn’t want to count words in a quote before hitting the “publish” button.
I’m hoping to be surprised. I also hope there’s not some hidden expectation that bloggers start paying into the AP co-op.